Elton John coin, LGBT crossings, gender assigned at birth. It feels cultish so beware the backlash

Some great songs, but a man who wears silly glasses and is well known for past addictions to cocaine, alcohol, promiscuity and temper tantrums isn’t perhaps the role-model you would expect to find on a British coin.

Moreover Cliff Richards has sold more records than Elton John (21 million to 13 million), and after a brief youthful phase of indulgence has been celibate and sober and Christian for as long as most of us can remember. 

But there’s no talk of a Cliff Richards coin.

Why Elton and not Cliff? Maybe Elton John is the greater artist; or maybe it is also because he is a gay icon and that means a lot in the corridors of power these days. 

Whatever the reasons, and however valid, it still means that whenever we use one of these coins we will have to look at someone who had done more than most to overturn what marriage has meant. 

The Royal Mint wants us to look at Elton John; and the Surrey County Council wants its hard working tax payers to have rainbow crossings with the subtle, Look Both Ways' at either end. It feels like the powers that be want to give out a message. 

The decision of the Surrey County Council is worrying. The council's job is to give us decent roads and pavements, and they are in a disgraceful state. Most of the important painted signs on our roads are totally faded. Some of our pavements are a miserable mosaic of cracks and fissures. Ask your councillor why our roads and pavements are not being maintained and they will tell you there is no money. And yet, out of the hat, suddenly the Surrey Country Council have the money to promise us a many coloured crossing with the oh so subtle instructions, 'Look Both Ways' on either side. More colours, more money, and yet there is no money to even keep the white signs looking good. This means there is some sort of evangelical fervour at work in the council that shrilly demands that the good people of Surrey must have the views of a minority rammed down their eyes, even though that is not their job. 

And worse - there are millions of people who have not signed up to the LGBT creed, have no plans to do so, and do not buy into the wholly unproven idea that human sexuality is fluid. Why should they be screamed at by the public servants to believe something they don't want to. When people start insisting on scratching their symbols on everything, that's when you feel something cult-like is at work. 

The Royal Mint, Surrey Country Council - and the NHS. Last week I was sent an NHS notice about the level of vulnerability of different groups to Covid 19. I was grieved when it came to the usually ordinary question of gender. 

It should have read: ‘Male or female’.

It didn’t.

It read: ‘Gender assigned at birth’.

This was absolutely cultish. For a cult brazenly shoves its lies into your face, daring you to react. This is total deceit. Nobody is assigned a gender. Everyone is born with a gender. If you want to talk about who does the assigning, talk about God or nature, but don’t drag in the crass idea that the parents or the doctors did any assigning. Sunk sickly into this deceit is the idea that if something is assigned, it can be changed. It can’t. Yes superficial and damaging physical changes can happen, but you are either XX or XY. That’s it. Nobody assigns it, nobody can change it.

An Elton John coin; gay propaganda crossings; ‘Gender assigned at birth’. It feels like a cult is at work (of course there is no organised one), and one wonders if it will ever end. No doubt activists have another campaign waiting in the wings - polygamy, bringing down the age of consent. 

But one day it will have to end, because the idea of sexual fluidity, of there being no male or female, is vacuous. Like eugenics that was all the rage a hundred years ago, there is no serious scientific proof for any of the LGBT creed. 

So, either there will be an implosion, or there will be an angry backlash from people fed up of being told how to think about something that is very personal, and from those wounded by the LGBT morality, like the children who would have liked to have had a female mummy and a male daddy, but were denied them. They might well feel they were experiments. And they will be angry.  

Implosion or backlash, that's the fate of all cults. They can't last because they are not anchored in reality. 

Jacqueline Wilson’s personal life: more evidence of a gay cabal in the BBC newsroom

The BBC has no shortage of serious news these days.

Where do you want to start?

There’s the rising death rate from Covid 19.

The severe shortage of masks for NHS workers.

The labour crisis in agriculture.

The rate of domestic abuse tripling.

The US withdrawing from the ‘Open Skies Treaty’

One would have thought in these strange days that life and death stories were jostling for a place on a short BBC news bulletin.

But what do we have on the national BBC news today?

What is the event that the whole nation – many mourning loved ones – needs to hear?

It is that the children’s writer Jacqueline Wilson is in a same sex relationship. And guess what? She has been in a same sex relationship for apparently 18 years.

In normal times there is nobody out there biting their nails about Jacqueline Wilson’s personal life, even less so now.

So why did this warrant inclusion in a national news bulletin?

This is almost certainly the correct answer.

There is a gay cabal in the BBC newsroom and whenever anything happens that can be used to advance their dismal cause of undermining the traditional family and promoting the unproven idea of sexual fluidity they jump on it. And yes, even on a day when the angel of corona death continues to reap more and more victims, on the day when the Queen feels it is necessary to address the nation, this cabal is so brazen that once they saw this story, there was no hesitation: it must be national news.

If anyone is in any doubt that the BBC are unashamed propagandists for the LGBT cult see here – https://sternfieldthoughts.blogspot.com/2020/02/what-can-get-bbc-to-tone-down-its-lgbt.html

Perhaps it is time for the Christian church first to rise up and pray that this cabal is exposed and sent packing; and then that the BBC gets back to giving its air time to serious news stories, especially in times like this.

Tim Farron and gay sex: giving into the baying crowd

Does a main-line Christian believe that gay sex is a sin?

Yes.

Sin literally means 'missing the mark', God's standard and gay sex is one activity of many that miss that mark.

This is a straight-forward answer backed up by the Bible and the teaching of all the major churches.

For the last two thousand years this has been seen as a perfectly normal and reasonable view for a Christian to take. The atheists and agnostics, the hedonists and the philosophers have disagreed, but they do not call themselves Christians.

However Mr Farron does.

So when the tabloid press with their penchant for the prurient started asking Mr Farron whether he believed gay sex was a sin he should have simply said, 'I am a Christian, so the answer is, 'Yes.'

It seems there was some hesitation, but eventually Mr Farron said the opposite.

This is a betrayal at two levels.

There is the betrayal of the main line Christian faith and the only loser here is Mr Farron. The media's kangaroo court  is over; the story almost forgotten. But Mr Farron now faces a future where he knows in his own heart that he has the sort of character that tries to face both ways.

And worse: in essence Mr Farron has tried to make up the rules of the world's oldest, largest and most successful organisation to please a few journalists from a non Christian culture soaked in the cheap candy floss morality of Elton John and Piers Morgan. For those with a sense of the history of how orthodox Christianity – with her clear teaching on human sexuality – has survived and prospered despite all the anti Christian dogmas adopted by various governments, this will cause a sad smile.

As for the baying journalists who hounded Mr Farron into a corner to squeeze this reluctant betrayal out of him, they are the storm troopers of the UK's new rainbow religion whereby anyone who rejects the dogma that gay sex is good should be put into room 101. One can feel some sympathy for Mr Farron who had to face them and a great sense of sadness for our country that now calls sin good.

It is at times such as this that men of courage are needed in public life.

Mr Farron does not appear to be in their number.

Tom Daley's news: everyone's happy ( just like in Animal Farm)

Listening to the UK current affairs programme 'Any Questions'  panel last week was a bad Orwellian dream. All the panelists were chanting about how happy they were to hear Tom Daley's news.

This is the news that makes our esteemed panelists so happy. Tom Daley, the brilliant diver,  a nineteen year old, has told the world that he is in a relationship with a man.

The man is twenty years older than Tom Daley.

Now if a nineteen year old daughter came back and announced to her parents that she was in a relationship with a thirty nine year old man, a lot of normal parents would be concerned. They would not immediately dance for joy and start phoning the likes of Jonathan Ross or Dimbleby to say how wonderful it is.

And some parents would quite rightly wonder whether this thirty nine year old man's intentions were honourable, whether he was more interested in the well being and long-term future of their daughter, or whether he was more interested in using her to get sexual pleasure for himself.

Our panelists didn't express any doubt over the decency of the relationship. Nor did they mention something else. Daley has told a newspaper that he still fancies girls. It might be he is going through a teenage phase and in a few years time he will fall in love and want to marry. It might then well be that he will look back with some regret at both this relationship – and its publicity. And those who are cheering now will look rather childish.

None of our panelists showed any concern about the age, or bothered to think ahead of the implications of all of this for Tom Daley's future. Their only concern was to bleat with the sheep that gay is good. It was poisonous blandness.

Two of the panelists were Orwellian in other ways. As well as their mindless bleating, there was the clear threat that other views would not be heard. Jeanette Winterson actually said that Andrew Lansley did not have a right to be heard; and I think it was Tristian Hunt who said that those who had doubts about the decency of Tom Daley's new relationship had to be 'fought'.

Jonathan Dimbleby stood up for Andrew Lansley – but completely failed to question any of the panelists bleating over Tom Daley. The chairman joined the sheep.

The irony is that none of this has anything to do with the rights of 'gay' people, or people who for one reason or another are different from the rest of us. The moral case of the gay lobby is that homosexuals are like ethnic minorities, people born with a different sexual nature. But Tom Daley still fancies girls. There's plenty of heterosexual in him. 

A few years ago David Bowie was being interviewed about his youth and he used an old fashioned word that applies here. Bowie said he had been very promiscuous. Our panelists thought they were cheering on some grand new advance for gay rights. But to some it might seen that when there's a case of a nineteen year old man having sex with a thirty nine year old man, but still admitting to having sexual feelings towards women, it might be, we don't know, it might that for reasons only the panelists can answer they are cheering on something that looks like an old fashioned case of promiscuity, sexual experimentation, 'free' love. 

Now they are all happy, just like at the start of Animal Farm. But check out the history books – societies that cheer on promiscuity implode.

Same Sex Marriage: pity the state, not the church

Unless there is a sudden revelation of sanity it looks pretty likely that same sex marriage will become legal in the UK, as well as in other European Countries and some states in the US. Tradition and logic are all on the side of the opponents of same sex marriage, but as with other aberrations in history, like political racism in the 1930’s, the majority are bleating the name of equality and so we ‘must’ have same sex marriage.

Pity the state, not the church. Pity the state because once same sex marriage is on the statute book governments will face two disasters. The first disaster, already happening in the UK, will be the virtual criminalisation of millions of traditionalists whose hard work does much to hold society together. These are the chaplains, the teachers, the social workers, the police, the soldiers, the sports coaches. The list is endless. Once same-sex marriage is legal, the gay lobby will target traditionalists to either force them out of work, or to sign up to their diversity fascism. The second disaster zone is much worse. It is the children. In the UK there has been no research undertaken by our bloated civil service to assess what the impact of same sex marriage will be on children. But it is not difficult to guess. Initially most children will tend to despise all adults who do not support same-sex marriage. Children will treat these sort of people like moral lepers. Initially. But the shallowness of Hollywood’s morality will be exposed for what it is, an enemy of the normal family where most people find happiness. There will be anger and regret from all the children short changed by the diversity free love religion, but it will be most intense among the children forced to grow up in situations where there are either two fathers or two mothers, and, with the age of consent down to 16 – again in the name of equality – where there has probably been legal abuse. These children will want to rise up against the state that has presided over such liberal misery. Pity the state. This whole same sex marriage experiment will go horribly pear shaped and society as a whole will suffer.

Pity the state, but not the church. The church has seen governments adopt all sorts of mad laws down the ages, plenty of them anti Christian, and the laws always become history, and the church always continues to grow and spread. Same sex marriage will actually be good for the church. It will sort out the true believer from the arrogant liberals who, like the German Church in the 1930’s, think they can adapt the teachings of the church to the, ‘spirit of the age’. And it will strengthen the true believers. They will be vilified. Treated as lepers. Thrown out of their work. In short, they will face some persecution. And the church thrives on persecution. The light of Christ will only grow stronger and those sinking in the candy floss sweetness of the diversity fascism will want to reach out and enjoy the true bread from heaven that only the church can give. Christians will grow in their faith, and the church will grow in numbers.

And when those numbers reach a certain point, the madness will come to an end, and, as has happened so often in history, the church and her values will help a new government clear up the mess and set things on a straighter path. 

A common theme in social liberal causes: indifference to children

Abortion, same sex marriage, and living together, three causes social liberals support. They are all about adults, made legitimate by the language of ‘rights’: the rights of woman over their bodies; the rights of the homosexuals; the rights of adults, usually men, to enjoy sex without legal commitment.

Adult causes which adults support to supposedly make adults happy. And being such adult causes they have something rather disturbing in common: indifference to children.

Indifference is of course rather a reserved word to use in the case of abortion.